Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Leonid

Assange's blog

Recommended Posts

Remember folks, if you're ever in a live debate make sure to ignore your opponents requests and make jokes about their desire to understand you.

 

In a live debate it's about winning the crowd over. This is generally done more with jokes than giving a crap about debating something.

 

we'd just get in to an endless back and forth because that's what you do 'cause you enjoy it and you think a meeting of the minds is no fun.

You could say Leonid won't discover a method of discussion where he's willing to either attempt to understand the opposition, nor clearly present his argument.

 

Perhaps a psychiatrist will do it for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember folks, if you're ever in a live debate make sure to ignore your opponents requests and make jokes about their desire to understand you.

 

In a live debate it's about winning the crowd over. This is generally done more with jokes than giving a crap about debating something.

 

we'd just get in to an endless back and forth because that's what you do 'cause you enjoy it and you think a meeting of the minds is no fun.

You could say Leonid won't discover a method of discussion where he's willing to either attempt to understand the opposition, nor clearly present his argument.

 

Perhaps a psychiatrist will do it for him.

 

It's always better to avoid realizing what the source material is actually saying and reply with examples that don't fit the requirements of the given context, then when refuted segue into language semantics territory, and then finally make up context out of thin air that is not alluded to in the source. This is the best way to have a debate - shift the goal posts to remove vital components.

 

You could say tantryl can't discover a method of discussion where he's willing to either attempt to understand the source material, or present an argument based on it.

 

Perhaps an English comprehension teacher will do it for him.

 

---

 

Riddle me this tantryl -

 

1. Can’t – I physically or emotionally or mentally can not do something.

 

2. Won’t – I physically or emotionally or mentally will not do something.

 

Happy with that definition?

 

Considering he's talking about mental configuration of the brain rather than physical capability or emotion - lets do a substitute:

 

It will not be created by the females currently in mathematics because they need a male type brain to thrive in the existing mathematical world.

Lets take things without your unsupported assumptions.

1. The existing mathematical world, as documented erroneously is male, spatially.

2. Women in that world will not be creating a new math paradigm because they're already thriving with their male-coded brains in the male mathematical world.

 

Sexism 1: Gender-exclusivity in a science whereby succeeding in it requires a gendered-brain, whatever that means.

Sexism 2: the assumption that women will no create a form of female mathematics because they need to thrive in male mathematics

Sexism 3: derived from 1 & 2 - the assumption that a male-type brain removes the choices of women, or their ability to create a new field. Presumption of knowing what all women in a certain subset will or will not do based on gender-discrimination thinking processes.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is really beginning to sound like a Community Events thread....I'll RTM and have it moved to the correct section.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Riddle me this tantryl -

 

1. Can’t – I physically or emotionally or mentally can not do something.

 

2. Won’t – I physically or emotionally or mentally will not do something.

 

Happy with that definition?

No. You've added "I physically or emotionally or mentally" and "do something" for some reason.

 

1. Can not - used to indicate that something is not possible.

2. Will not - used to indicate that something is not probable.

 

It will not be created by the females currently in mathematics because they need a male type brain to thrive in the existing mathematical world.

Lets take things without your unsupported assumptions.

1. The existing mathematical world, as documented erroneously is male, spatially.

2. Women in that world will not be creating a new math paradigm because they're already thriving with their male-coded brains in the male mathematical world.

 

Sexism 1: Gender-exclusivity in a science whereby succeeding in it requires a gendered-brain, whatever that means.

Sexism 2: the assumption that women will no create a form of female mathematics because they need to thrive in male mathematics

Sexism 3: derived from 1 & 2 - the assumption that a male-type brain removes the choices of women, or their ability to create a new field. Presumption of knowing what all women in a certain subset will or will not do based on gender-discrimination thinking processes.

Sexism 1: This is a problem with the original common conception.

Sexism 2: How is this sexism? It's like being offended that you won't invent a new language 'cause you're trained in existing ones. Won't, not can't.

Sexism 3: As sexism 2 is faulty and sexism 1 is the original common conception, this is a figment of your faulty logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Can not - used to indicate that something is not possible.

2. Will not - used to indicate that something is not probable.

Ah - that's where you're confused.

 

Will not is not a probability statement inasmuch as can not is not a probability statement.

 

I will not make out with Kevin Rudd is the same as I can't make out with Kevin Rudd.

 

In either case you can say that "can't" is a mental block and that I actually can - there's nothing physically stopping me from it, and "will not" suggests that I know the future.

 

In this case, as in most others, will not is future extension of can not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Can not - used to indicate that something is not possible.

2. Will not - used to indicate that something is not probable.

Ah - that's where you're confused.

 

Will not is not a probability statement inasmuch as can not is not a probability statement.

 

I will not make out with Kevin Rudd is the same as I can't make out with Kevin Rudd.

 

In either case you can say that "can't" is a mental block and that I actually can - there's nothing physically stopping me from it, and "will not" suggests that I know the future.

 

In this case, as in most others, will not is future extension of can not.

 

Wrong contextual use of will not. In this case it's indicating the desire of the speaker - I will not. Something involving a personal desire.

 

Try using it with a group the speaker isn't a part of.

 

The terrorists will not kill Kevin Rudd versus the terrorists can not kill Kevin Rudd.

 

One is a prediction, the other is a statement that indicates Kev is immortal.

Edited by tantryl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we're all waiting on the outcome of Tom vs the world. Its sure to be an epic battle.

 

 

 

And hows your mate Chrisg going?

 

Well I hope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Assange's blog is stranger than I am.

 

Maybe he is saying the truth is subjective depending on your point of view.

Edited by AnthraxPants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think anyone who blogs frequently has a little bit of narcissism hiding in there, so I'm not surprised if he's upping the wank value of his writing, it's only there for someone else to read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×